tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 19, 2017 7:00pm-8:01pm PST
efforts of local community leaders like shauna verago that we have come so far in the city. thank you for fighting for change while producing cultural work that expands safety, love, gender and sexuality outside of oppressive systems. on behalf of the board of supervisors i commend you for your tireless work to advance work for transgender and queer people in san francisco. [cheering] >> thank you supervisor ronen very much. thank you kara, thank you. and i just want to say i feel, i've been very fortunate to be part of groups who are committed to collective responsibility for all of our underserved and oppressed communities and i feel like we are the future of this country. and the ways that we are doing work together, so thank you. i would like to say that the san
francisco transgender film festival was founded in 1997 by my friends christopher lee and alex austin, and we are the first and longest running transgender and gender nonconforming film festival in the world. founded at a time when other film festivals would not screen trans and gender nonconforming filmmakers. we are proud to still be part of ongoing movements, supporting expression and leadership of communities of color, immigrants, and all trans and queer people. especially now as we are fighting the negative impact of gentrification against all of our communities. i am very honored and humbled today to accept this commendation. thank you very much. [applause]
>> president breed: congratulations, shauna, and thank you so much for being here today. our final commendation will be given by supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: thank you once again. i'm going to be switching gears a little bit now. i want to honor and recognize the san francisco bay area families for safe streets. these come on up alvin and amanda. in 2016 through the budget process i secured seed funding so san francisco could launch a local chapter of the national organization of families for safe streets. today i am proud to wear this scarf that symbolizes their chapter and their group that
actually advocates so strongly to get us to our vision 0 goals. families for safe street is a volunteer group whose members have been directly and heartbreakingly impacted by traffic violence. all members have had family members either killed or severely injured on our streets or are survivors of crashes themselves. as a survivor of a pedestrian crash myself, this group and its work is close to my heart. you may have seen mtas current billboard campaign, states my family member was killed at this intersection. these billboards were not created for the scare tactic. the people you see are not paid actors. they are members of families for safe streets. alvin is one, is on one of the
billboards. in 2016, 30 people were killed on our streets while walking, cycling, riding in a vehicle or while driving. as of october 30, '15 people have been killed this year on our streets. four of them over the age of 75. these are not stats, these are people whose families are heart broken and forever changed by crashes that are preventable. we have a vision 0 city and must do better. the members of the families for safe street -- support others in
the bay area who have similar experiences. but also tirelessly work to improve the safety of our streets. they have created resource pamphlets for families and in multiple languages. when alvin was contacted about the death of his son, it was hours and hours of multiple stops at offices before he was able to locate his body. this group learned that this was not an isolated incident. race to intradepartmental communication process added to the dispair and suffering and anguish for the families. family for safe streets worked with the department of public health and medical examiner's office and district attorney's office to create a new streamline communication process with the departments and with
families. unimaginable experience formed a new process that is now adopted and implemented in the city. starting last year and continuing this year, they are working to change the state law to allow automatic speed enforcement. this -- the data in the 140 other jurisdictions that have these what we call ases undenybly slow, show a reduction in collisions and fatalities. i want to be clear that when i say they are working to improve the safety of our streets, they are actually volunteering, taking time off work, they are travelling to sacramento, they are reliving the trauma by telling, and retelling the experience of having -- family members killed or
severely injured themselves. we must do better as a city because one death or injury is too many. we need to raise awareness. sorry. i'm just going to -- ok. this sunday is the world day of remembrance. san francisco bay area families for safe street has organized a memorial walk and vigil to honor the victims and survivors of traffic violence. in recognition of the world day of remembrance, both city hall and the tower will be lit in yellow. please join me sunday at 3:00 at 16th and mission for the vigil
walk or 4:30 on the steps of city hall. my staff will forward you your office's information and powerful video about world day of remembrance. please share with your communities and join us on sunday. i am humbled to honor the families for safe streets and grateful for your work, but the aspiration is that there is no need for them to exist one day. alvin and amanda, i invite you for a few words. [applause] >> thank you, supervisor yee. my story is not simple but it's necessary. my name is alvin lester. one of the founders of safe streets. i got involved because of the death of my 21-year-old son, amman, was using the city streets as many of your
residents do. when he was struck and killed by a neglected driver in the bayview neighborhood on november 1, 2014. the families for safe streets began after world day of remembrance 2015. with a group of members who share a similar experiences to mine. i'm here to help change the culture of acceptance for the traffic violence on our roadways as a group. we support laws like assembly bill 342, for automated speed enforcement, and we build awareness through education on and i want to thank supervisor norman yee to make san francisco a better and safer city to walk, bike and drive. also i want to thank supervisor yee for his work with walk san francisco and his support for vision 0. as an author of the legislation that requires tour bus drivers
to accompany by a tour guide, finally, thank you supervisor yee for your recognition to world day of remembrance this sunday's memorial and vigil. you have truly been a great help and i look forward to the day we can come together, we can work together when we make a difference for all who travel the city streets. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. [applause] >> president breed: supervisor kim would like to make some remarks. >> supervisor kim: i tried to speak before you did, i want to add my words of thanks to you and the organization on top of supervisor yee. as a co-author with supervisor yee of the vision 0 ordinance, it is the voices of the families who have either lost loved ones or who have experienced injuries because of these absolutely preventable collisions on our streets that are helping to move this issue forward. and in a city where more people are killed by cars than by guns,
this is absolutely one of our top public health issues, and i just thank you for sharing your story because of how difficult it is and courageous. but also ensuring that other families don't experience what you have, and frankly, i've been incredibly disappointed by the gridlock in sacramento over the issue of automated speed enforcement cameras. we know, we know from data in other countries that they are absolutely the most important tool over anything else that we can do in preventing these deaths and injuries on our streets. so, thank for your continued advocacy on this issue as well. >> president breed: thank supervisor kim. >> hi, i'm amanda lamb, i'm a member of san francisco bay area families for safe streets. i was hit by a car as a pedestrian over in the philmore
district two years ago and after the catastrophic impact that crash has had on my life as well as the lives of the people that i love i joined this group to do whatever i could to end traffic violence in our city. because of my experience i would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to you, supervisor yee, for all of the work that you've done to make our city a safer place for our pedestrians and bicyclists and drivers. your continued support of vision 0 and your authorship of the tour bus legislation that alvin was mentioning after the death of pressy merido outside city hall is deeply appreciated by the members of our group, and the work you have done has not gone unnoticed and we are so thankful that you supervisor yee
and the other supervisors are making safety a priority for san francisco. also wanted to thank you, supervisor yee, for helping us to recognize world day of remembrance coming up this sunday. from the 17 traffic deaths that we have had in our city so far just this year, it's clear that there is still a lot of work to be done. so, thank you all. we look forward to your continued leadership, supervisor yee, and to our city's commitment to end traffic deaths and injuries by 2024. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. [applause]
>> president breed: alvin, we are deeply sorry for your loss and we thank you for your work and advocacy. thank you both for your courage and being here to share your stories and the work you continue to do on this issue. thank you very much. [applause] >> president breed: and to supervisor yee, thank you again for all of the advocacy that you do on the board of supervisors, to bring an end to this. we know that sadly you experienced a really tragic accident yourself and we are so glad that you are here with us today. thank you for your courage and your work and what you continue to do to push the city in the right direction around safety improvements and making sure vision 0 does exactly what it's intended to do. we appreciate you very much. and with that, we will return to our agenda, congratulations to all the honorees and thank you
all so much for your patience. madam clerk, we -- we finished with committee reports, we have two 3:00 p.m. special orders. our first special order. >> item 29, through 32, comprise the hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act issued you as a categorical exemption by the planning department, approved, for the proposed project at 20 nobles alley, remove permitted second garage door and facade, and remove window to the right of the level e ground floor entry door. item 30, motion to affirm the department's determination that this project is exempt from
further review. item 31 is, reverse the determination subject to adoption of written findings and item 32, the motion to direct the preparation of findings. >> president cleaveland: colleagues, i rise to ask for recusal in so far as i am the owner of real property within 500 feet of the site that is the subject of the appeal and have been advised by counsel i need to ask to be rekufd. >> president breed: moved by supervisor yee, seconded by supervisor kim, take that without objection? without objection, supervisor peskin, you are excused. colleagues, we have before us the appeal of the determination of exemption from the environmental review for 20 nobles alley in district 3. for this hearing we will be considering the adequacy,
accuracy, sufficiency and completeness of the planning department environmental review determination for the project at 20 nobles alley, without objection, we will proceed as follows. up to ten minutes for presentation by the appellant representative, up to two minutes for speaker in support of the appeal. up to ten minutes for presentation by the planning department, up to ten minutes for the project sponsor or their representative, up to two minutes per speaker for those who are in opposition of the appeal, and finally, up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or the appellant representative. colleagues, without objection we will proceed in this way, and open up this hearing and at this time we will ask for the appellant or the appellant representative to please come forward. >> here or here? >> president breed: either, whichever you prefer. you have ten minutes. >> we have one question for some of our speakers. did they have to speak at a speaker card, the public
members, members of the public on our side? they are speaking after the ten minutes, do they have to fill out a card? >> president breed: no. >> ok, thank you. president breed, members of the board, thank you for permitting us to speak in support of this appeal today. my name is mark bruno, i run a program for the homeless in north beach where i live. before we discuss the appeal itself, and that will be presented mostly by an architect, brent mcdonald, and mataas, before we discuss this, i would like to request that the city attorney permit our elected representative, aaron peskin, to debate today, to vote and otherwise engage in this appeal. let me introduce you to some of the people whose absence of supervisor peskin is being harmed today. those people here from district 3 and not represented. could you please stand? if you are from our district, or simply here for the appeal, if
you could let us see who you are. so you'll see there is quite a bit, a few people here familiar with this project, and thank you very much. and thank you for coming. some of them will speak after the ten minutes. so, again, we know there is a 500 foot prohibition and it's from the state law, ethics code. we claim that we, this, does harm to us and unconstitutional. we believe it's a violation of equal protection, that it is substantively different to have 500 prohibition in district 3, the smallest geographical district in the city, than in district 7, almost three times larger. a disparity that indicates the arbitraryness of the law. the city itself acknowledges in many findings that there exists substantive socioeconomic differences from district to district. i cite the board's analyst 2013
benefits from district report. the report confirms disparities in north beach that mention that we in north beach, that district 3 has a group of older people than some other districts. you yourselves are familiar with the disparities because you have run to be here as district supervisors. and the socioeconomic profiles of the districts based on the u.s. senate. to prohibit mr. peskin from debating and voting on this matter in his own district is to deny protection, equal protection to people, many members of constitutionally protected classes. the russian hill neighbors, north beach business association, chinatown community development and chinatown tenants association have all written to you in support of this appeal. they claim in the letters that the building of this garage and the appeal is sensitive to the dynamic of our district. how can we then move forward with a matter that is sensitive
geographically to our neighborhood without our representative being here? the process reviews historic districts and neighborhood characteristics. 1998, the voters chose representation. the supervisors should be allowed to speak here unless it does great harm to the city. the letter does not cite harm done to the city or the people. note with dismay no mention is made of his right under the ethics code to address this board as a private citizen. no reference is made in the letter to the public generally, exception, since you have heard of you, you are familiar with ethics code and to disclose his so-called conflict property and participates in the debate, allowed under the ethics code.
supervisor peskin is eligible for a public generally exception. property at issue is no more likely to be materially affected by a review of 20 nobles alley than anyone else here today or in the public generally. so finally we ask, i know deputy city attorney givener is here and we ask him to repent that prohibition and overturned so our supervisor can represent us. thank you so much. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is a brent mcdonald, licensed architect, retained by some of the neighbors that are appealing this categorical exemption. licensed architect and studied historic preservation in school. nobles alley is sort of a
microarea of the historic district at large and the review we ask for today is to conditional review the cat x. we believe the city should look at a mitigated declaration at a minimum. we rely on our expert testimony on the city's own report specifically the san francisco department of public health indicator tool, otherwise known as the city's health indicator charts. if there are -- this is just one of the charts, talks about ownership of vehicles. north beach is included as one of the 39 neighborhoods and i think the reports were presented in your package. they do show that north beach has one of the lowest ratios of open space to household density, north beach has the third from the bottom ratio of households to privately owned vehicles. and north beach is a mixed bag when it comes to pedestrian
quality on the street, seeming less pretendly because they are part of a transportation grid, east/west is the highest grade for pedestrian quality. appeal we ask for from the board would allow the city to match the d.p.h. reports, healthy indicator charts to the proposed project. presumed partial restoration and legalized garage at the site. cumulati cumulative effects say it will detrimentally affect the quality of life in north beach. conclusion, north beach has fewer cars per household, it's not a norm for the households to have a car, that almost is different than the other parts of the city. the northeast quadrant is very dense, and the pedestrian index is mixed. by giving this one property on one of the districts narrowest
allies an exemption, the planning department ignores transportation mix in the healthy charts pedestrian right-of-way, reviewable category. looking at the project plans referenced in the categorical exemption, no allowance for a right-of-way wide enough to permit a walker to use the sidewalk. i would like the overhead turned on for some reason -- there we go. look and see the garage that they intend to maintain there, that chunk of concrete takes up the entire sidewalk for them to get in, versus the garage is clandestinely without permit construction, the original construction looked like this. you can see beyond -- you can see a normally graded sidewalk without a huge lump of concrete.
that clearly does not meet the accessibility standards. for this reason i believe that a fair argument can be made that the project will have a significant impact on the environmental impact and categorical exemption should be overturned. as you know, when the appellant presents nearly a fair argument the project may have an environmental impact the exemption fails. i'm not making conclusions what the review may find, only saying a review is needed and this is not a project that should be given a categorical exemption. i would also like to address the issue that is pertinent to the appeal, because the question, the context of the cat x, the willingness of the board to set policy regarding garages and housing in the city, i refer to section 249 passed by the board of supervisors that bans all garages in north beach for any streets less than i believe 50 feet without a special review.
... please allow those with disabilities to go first. first speaker? >> thank you, i'm honored to speak before you, as always. my name is susan stotter, i was the founder of the los angeles county high school for the theater of arts, i went on to be the director of the conservatory theater and just retired fairly recently as the director for the
san francisco unfied school district. i've been a renter in this town in north beach for 30 years. i love it there. that's who i am. i'm not against people redoing things and i recognize private property owners rights to make needed changes. and there may be alleys in north beach which an exemption would be appropriate, but nobles valley is not one of them. it's one of the place this planning code was written to protect. it's up a steep hill, on a dead end and not even one car wide. there is no turnaround. how can cars turn into a garage, let alone get out of it? the same people who are trying to do this are responsible for creating illegal short-term rentaling. they don't care about us in north beach. they're a heart breaker.
they cause confusion among those who rent and live there. i am surrounded by renters, old people, children, parents, we live here. we are not leaves that blow in and out. we live in fear of eviction every single day, of having to leave the urban community we so love. the confusion and pain caused by the evictions from illegal short-term rentals causes us all pain. and the man who knows every inch of the community and participate in the marrying and burying and takes up our causes is aaron peskin. and he is not allowed to represent us. >> bell ringing. >> president breed: thank you, time is concluded. >> supervisor from the community development center, i wanted to point you to, in your pact, page
142 which is a denial of the original project. under the review, the planning department talks about how this historical review of the design, the garage door could not be supported because it would not conform to section 144 of the planning code that limits garages. it goes on to say that, the removal of the second unpermited garage door and restoration of a prior door and window was reviewed as a mean to returning to ground floor design, more historic appearance. this was on the ability to provide evidence of a single garage door legal installation. here you have it. the determination, you can install, you can legalize the two garage doors, unless you can prove they, at least one of them, which would be consistent
with the historic tissue of the neighborhood was installed legally. we're here talking about a blunt instrument. sometimes we use it surgically, sometimes we use it bluntly. we tried in the north beach area to use surgical precision. that's why these garages are not allowed. we are here today because the board of appeals in their infinite wisdom, this surgical approach, passed by this board of supervisors that prohibits garages in alleyways, for some reason the board of appeals found that is a better way to let the property owner legalize at least one of the garage doors. [bell ringing] >> president breed: thank you. thank you. time is concluded.
thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm mar lan knight from the tenants committee, co-chair. we support the appeal and oppose the exemption for twinning nobels alley. it's exempting from planning code exemption which is already mentioned. this code restricts, in fact eliminates garages in north beach alleys. thus, limiting traffic and noise and enabling the residents of these alleys to maintain quality of life. these alleys are very numerous in north beach. and the exemption sets a dangerous precedent. i urge you to uphold planning code 249.9. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
>> hello, good afternoon, my name is roger strobele, i'm a long term resident and lived from 1979 to 1999, as a tenant. on nobels alley, the front on the street. and the la year of my tenancy, which came to end within no fault ellis act imposed by the new owner, with the eviction of residents of five of the units. in any case, it was last year when these two garages were built at the top of nobody nobles alley. i do promote an exemption to
expand this area. it's a very -- the street itself is steeply graded, nobles valley, it can't be longer than 80 feet. i remember two cab drivers who lived there, including a chinese father, a restaurant worker, a couple of cab drivers, postal worker, a teacher and writer, who lived actually 20 nobles and it was very -- even the cab drivers would not use that to park up there. it's very difficult to get up and down. it's very narrow, very constrained and there were families with children. i think it's -- i don't see why there should be exemption. it's not a good place for vehicular access or activity.
thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm chris bigelow, i've been a resident of north beach and russian hill for over 30 years. our city, the older densely packed neighborhoods suffer from a toxic wave of development proposals attempting to insert additional square footage at the expense of the character that makes these neighborhoods so appealing. what is stimulating this push for more and more and more? the automatic inclusion of garages in such proposals may serve the needs of present owners, but it is often a calculated component of property development strategies and the anticipated profits resulting from a future resale.
and now in addition to the criteria of planning code section 249.49, i'd like to call our attention to the planning department's city wide action plan, including the better neighborhoods program, which has this to say about parking. it degrades the quality of urban places. generates traffic, takes up valuable space and makes housing less affordable. today, we are designing places as much for parking as for people and funneling more and more traffic onto our streets. the result is a city that is becoming more about cars and congestion. and less about the character and human comfort that makes san francisco so special. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public who would like to address the appeal on behalf of the appellant?
please step up. >> thank you. seeing none, public comment is closed. we will go to a presentation from the planning department. >> good afternoon, president breed members of the board. i'm tonya schoenherr, joining me today is environmental review officer and current planner, acting senior preservation planner. i would like to emphasize to the board that the decision before you is not about the project's merits, but it's whether to uphold the department's categorical exemption and deny the appeal, or overturn and return the project for further environmental review. the project site is on the north side of nobles alley.
it is occupied by a two-story basement, housing two dwelling units at the rear of the building and one facing the alley. they would legalize the garage doors without the benefit of a permit. the permit application scope of work is to remove the second garage door. the stucco wall on the floor would be restored. the project site is located in the upper grand avenue historic district. just to go briefly over the permitting history of the project. on may 8th, 2017, the planning department issued a notice of planning department disapproval for building permit. the permit proposed to remove
one of the two existing garage doors on the building's visible front elevation. the building permit application was disproved because there were permits on file. -- there were no permits on file. measuring less than 41 feet in width and because nobles alley measures less than 41 feet, the project was disapproved. the project was reviewed by the board of appeal and as part of their review, the board of appeals continued the hearing and requested they seek review of the project in advance of the 2013 continuation hearing.
on september 7, they filed environmental application and the department determined that given the limited scope of the project, it was categorically exempt under guidelines, class one, existing facilities and no review was required. on september 2017, as a continuation of the building permit appeal hearing, the board of appeals overturned the prior decision and approved to the project. the item before you is appeal of a categorical exemption and in challenging the issuance of the categorical exemption it brought up issues that illustrate their misunderstanding of the process and the method of reviewing historic resources. misunderstand the purpose and objectives of the secretary of interior standards and how they
are applied and the analysis. although it is in the historic district, the building is not a contributor to the district. further more, in the review form, the project would restore the ground floor facade to prior and could not cause a substantial material impact to the upper grand district. as noted in the department's written response, the standards rcmp not intended to address a structure's legal status and further more, the existing building on the project site is not a historic resource. the standards allow flexibility in the treatment so long as the project alterations are compatible with the defining
features, which the department found they would be. in this case, they will restore in a manner that is consistent with the character of the district and in conformance with the standards. because this project was determined to comply with the standards, any impact on historical resources were less than significant and the project was determined eligible for a categorical exemption. therefore, the department appropriately utilized the secretary of interior standards to analyze the historical impact of the project and found the project would not result in significant impact. the department thus appropriately prepared a categorical exemption as the reviewed document. the appellant says that the review of the project, with the review of the project consistency with the planning code and other applicable guidelines. which regulates offstreet
parking and installation of garages and existing residential structures and could conflict with the department guidelines for adding garages and curb cuts. the department does note dispute this and it's for this reason the department disapproved the project on may 8, 2017. however, consistent with the department standard practice, the review fort project was conducted independent of the project consistency. the environmental review focused specifically on the project potential environmental impact pursuant to seekwa. despite the project's likely inconsistencies with planning code provisions and department guidelines noted by the appellant, the project qualified for class 1. the class 1 provides exemption for interior and exterior
alterations of individual small structures. the proposed project includes a minor alteration of one structure and therefore appropriately qualifies for a class 1 categorical exemption. the project may result in other impacts related to traffic congestion and increased use of open spaces, but presents no evidence to support the assertions. the proposed project would not dramatically change the appearance or operations of the existing building at 20 nobles alley, it would not increase population, building massing that would lead to traffic congestion or overcrowding of open spaces. rather removing one of the existing two garage doors could improve the appearance and reduce the number of vehicles that access the current garage, improving circulation. in conclusion, no substantial evidence as a result of the project has been presented, that
would warrant preparation of further environmental review for the proposed project. the department has found that the project is consistent with requirements of a class one exemption and that the appellant has not provided evidence to refute the conclusions of the department. the department recommends that the board uphold the categorical exemption and deny the appeal. this concludes the department's presentation. i'm available for further questions. thank you. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: one question in regards to issue 5, the last point that you had responded to. i didn't really understand -- i know in your determination in the brief that reducing two garage doors to one, you state that it would bring the property into greater conformance to the building's previous appearance. there was your garage door, is that what you mean by the previous appearance?
what does greater conformance mean? >> i would like this ask my colleague to speak to this issue. >> yeah, this is on page 9. the second to last paragraph of issue number 5. i just want to understand what that meant specifically. >> i believe so there are two existing garage doors now. neither of which were legal. and from previous evidence, they were added at different times. so, removing one and leaving one would bring the project -- or
the property closer to conformance with -- greater conformance with the code because it would reduce the illegality of two doors. >> supervisor kim: i understand that from a layman's perspective, but if it's illegal, it's illegal. i only hear if you go 50% of the way in the illegal activity, it's more legal, right? >> the other part of the point is that those alterations were made prior to the planning code section, 249 -- the sud. so at the time they were installed, legally or not, had they gone through the process of -- appropriately, they would have been legal. they could have been improved at that time. so, that is taken into consideration, at least it was
with the board of appeals' decision. >> supervisor kim: i understand that you're in a difficult position on this, because you did actually not -- you didn't approve the initial permit, but i'm just having a hard time with the argument. so you know, even if there was a use that was legally permitted, for example, a restaurant is legally permitted on the parcel, but i move forward and open a restaurant without the permitting process, just because i'm zoned for a restaurant, doesn't mean i'm legally operating. the permit seems to be what legally allows you to have the use. you have to go through the permitting process to have it legal. i just found that challenging argument that being only 50% illegal, makes it maybe more legal. you understand where i'm going with that? just because i'm not familiar with the property, although i appreciate that the appellant
brought in the two photos, by altering the garage to have only one door, does it, i guess does it limit the size of the garage internally? are we only focused on the exterior of the building versus the interior? i wasn't on the board in 2010 when we were discussing the limitation to one garage. or one garage -- but is it sud about one graunl or one garage door? >> the planning department staff, so the purview of our review was strictly over the exterior. the original denial of the permit was based on a full plan check. and the full plan check just had to do with the presence of a garage, period, in an existing structure. which is the purpose of section
249.49, the s dutch. so it -- sud. it is irrelevant whether it's internal or external, just the presence of the garage, period, was not allowable at this location under current code. >> supervisor kim: previous to the 2010 telegraph hill to regulate offstreet parking, where we placed restrictions on garages in the neighborhood, to i guess, assume zero, previous to that, one garage was permitted in this alleyway when these two illegal garages were built, is that correct? >> at 20 nobles specifically? >> supervisor kim: yes, 20 nobles specifically. >> yes, it would have been prior
to the sud. >> supervisor kim: what was the language, if you were allowed one garage, was it a two-car garage? was what was regulated was the number of doors or the number of parking spots? >> section 144 of the planning code deals with street frontages in districts that are zoned for residential, rh districts and the language of the section discusses limitations on the amount of the ground floor building facade that could be dedicated to entrances to off-street parking >> supervisor kim: but it did not regulate or restrict the number of parking spots within the garage? >> no, for this property, under normal conditions they could have up to three parking spots. >> supervisor kim: i see. so previous to the 2010 ordinance when the two parking garage doors were illegally built, at the time what was allowed, if they'd gone through the permitting process was one
door with three parking spots. is that what is there currently? so there are two doors, how many parking spots? >> it's my understanding from the testimony provided by the property owner at the board of appeals hearing that the two garage doors provide access to two vehicles. >> supervisor kim: ok, to two vehicles only. so if this had -- if they had gone through the approval process previous to 2010 and only had one garage door, the interior would have been legally permissible if approved? >> that's correct. >> supervisor kim: so what went through the board of appeals hearing subsequent to the planning department's disapproval, is that the proposed project before us today, one exterior door and two
parking spots? >> i don't believe they addressed the number of interior parking spaces specifically, but the content of the board of appeals overturning an approval just had to do with the retention of a garage, period. i guess it would be suspected that they would need to be in conformance with current code, which would allow for up to three. but that was not the specific topic of any of the discussion at the board of appeals hearing. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor kim, supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim for the questions, that was really helpful. from our trying to understand this whole situation, i thought there was a permit that was found by the current owners of 20 nobles from 1997, is that correct? there was one garage for 1997, so that predated the 2010 sud?
>> is the question whether there was a permit in 1997? >> supervisor tang: did the department get to see that permit? >> yes, that information was provided to the department after the original enforcement case was filed with us. so, in our due diligence of trying to understand the history of the property, the project owner -- or the property owner provided us with as much information as they had. and that included a 1997 permit that illustrated a single garage door on the plan set, however, upon further research, it was never the content of an actual permit scope. so, while a garage door appeared on the 97 permit, it was never actually the subject of a permit. that was work -- other work unrelated.
and the drawings happened to show a garage door on those plans, but we don't have any record of it being created legally. >> supervisor tang: so you saw permit filed for the garage in 1997, but you don't know if it was actually constructed? >> we have photographs also in the records. >> supervisor tang: the packet? >> yes, and they do show, they date to the time frame, or soon thereafter. so it would -- it would seem that that one garage door was constructed after that time. >> supervisor tang: ok. and just -- i mean, it's a little strange to me, the history of what happened here. i don't know if i'm allowed to ask mr. bruno a question, president breed, or if i have to wait until later? >> president breed: for the? >> supervisor tang: for the appellant? >> president breed: no, you can ask him now. >> supervisor tang: ok, i have a
for the appellant. >> supervisor tang: just one question. how long have you lived in your current house? >> i've lived in nobles alley since 1985 with travels to los angeles and other places, but 1985. >> supervisor tang: how many different owners have there been? >> mr. yee has owned the property for 50 years with his family. i knew them because they were there when i was living there. he sold the property in 1997. and that -- >> supervisor tang: i'm sorry, one speaker at a time. >> just so -- so that everybody knows, people feel strongly -- >> supervisor tang: just answer the question, how many people have owned -- >> i believe there have been four or five owners.
>> we believe this garage was established in 1997, this current owner, we saw e-mail saying she came into ownership of august 2016. i'm wondering why at this moment, why all of a sudden, after you've lived there since 1985, you brought forth the original notice of violation? >> the reason is, nobody was able to use the garages. as roger was talking about the back door and photographs here prove, it was impossible to use the garages. they were built in 1997. there is no proof they were built at separate moments in time. >> do you have something on the projector? >> i apologize. can you show tv what is on the projector. and can you step back, please, thank you. >> thank you, president breed. so basically, the people who built the garage just after the
yes sold it, talked to about the permit. >> what year was this? >> fall of 1997 approximately. and they were building them together. they were not built separately, they were built together. yeah. and when they finished them, i asked them if they had a permit, nothing ever came through, nothing was done. and then it was clear to them, the owners themselves, it was impossible to use the garages. like all of us in small spaces, we go on with our lives when nothing is bothering us. they were used to storage. >> supervisor tang: only they were recently used? >> they were never used by the owners. they approached me, saw i worked in the neighborhood, worked from my house and we discussed it. i told them they'd never been used and they had bicycles there
and storage. that's all. they said we intend to use the garage. i said that's going to change the whole neighborhood. i don't think they're permitted. i wasn't sure. >> supervisor tang: thank you. thanks, i'll save my other comments later after we hear from the other party. >> president breed: thank you. so at this time seeing no other names on the roster, we will have a presentation from the project sponsor up to ten minutes. good afternoon, thank you for your time related to this. i'm sorry we're taking up so much time. i will try to address the various issues. i'm more than welcome to answer